First and foremost, government control of anything is viewed with extreme suspicion in the United States. Government control can (and, in the United States, usually does) lead to attempts by the government to regulate peoples' lives.
How is government-controlled healthcare any different than public schools or a public postal service, which you already have?
Besides, the US spend 16.5% of GDP on healthcare, which is A LOT compared to other contries.
As a result, if we were to have government involved in health care, it would likely lead to yet more penalties for people who smoke, drink, or (based on recent attempts at legislation) drink soft drinks. I personally don't want the government telling me what I can do in the privacy of my own home. America was founded on the concept of "that government is best which governs least".
In the view of Norwegians, that wouldn't be the government dictating what people do in their own home, but the government trying to promote public health. What you choose to do is up to you, but the unhealthy choice costs you a little bit more.
Furthermore, as Legolas said, Europeans seem to think ObamaCare is an attempt to implement government-run socialised medicine in the United States. It is not. Traditionally, one can have two systems for health care:
1. A free market system where doctors, hospitals, insurance companies and the insured all seek maximum benefit at minimum cost
OR
2. A government-run system where all costs are handled through taxation and government fiat.
The United States evolved along the free market path. Theoretically, if we did truly have a "free market" system it would work. Insurance companies would compete with one another to provide better benefits at better rates, hospitals would compete and doctors would compete.
1. A free market system where doctors, hospitals, insurance companies and the insured all seek maximum benefit at minimum cost
OR
2. A government-run system where all costs are handled through taxation and government fiat.
The United States evolved along the free market path. Theoretically, if we did truly have a "free market" system it would work. Insurance companies would compete with one another to provide better benefits at better rates, hospitals would compete and doctors would compete.
All well and good, if insurance was mandatory. As it is today, the insurance company can deny chronially ill people insurance. Which in my mind is highly unethical.
Unfortunately, runaway malpractice litigation makes doctors have to pay too much in malpractice insurance and legal judgments, and as a result they get squeezed by insurance companies and hospitals. Hospitals are groaning under the rampant use of emergency rooms by illegal immigrants (as emergency rooms cannot refuse anyone who walks in) who then leave and never pay (usually because they can't even be found) and as a result they increase costs for everyone else. Insurance companies refuse coverage to people who will be considered risks to avoid getting squeezed like everyone else.
So...enter ObamaCare. ObamaCare (depending on whether you're looking at the House or Senate versions of the bill) is now saying that people will have to get insurance and may have to pay a fine if they don't have insurance. Does this solve any of the above problems? No. In fact, it makes it likely that insurance will be slightly more expensive because insurers will know people can't just say "no" and walk away. It does (in the House bill only) force insurers to take people even if they have pre-existing conditions (which, as we know, can range from being pregnant to having advanced lung cancer or full-blown AIDS). Is that going to make insurance less expensive? I'll let you decide since the answer's pretty obvious. Both bills try to use the flawed model of Medicare as a basis for future regulation, at a time when Medicare fraud is costing the government billions of dollars. Neither bill addresses the issue of illegals or the skyrocketing cost of medical malpractice. The bill with the "public option" (i.e., government-provided insurance) is actually even worse in many ways because it hurts the insurance companies' ability to negotiate against hospitals for lower costs.
Yes, there are some serious issues with ObamaCare. But there are some serious issues with today's system as well. The truth is, you are pricing the middle class out of healthcare. The insurance fees are galloping at a much faster rate than the increase in income. According to a Princeton economist, given the current development, in ten years time an average american family of four average healthy persons with an average income, over half of their income will be spent on healthcare! Obama has to do something!
At a time when the United States is facing massive unemployment, lingering economic problems and a burgeoning deficit, a bill that forces employers and individuals to pay even more money as the result of a new government program is the sort of thing that would hurt our economy even further.
A budget-neutral reform would be hard, maybe impossible. But by also doing something with the actual health system and not just the funding of it, you could save some money there. (like not sending patients for unnecessary tests, put them on unnecessary treatments, cut back on administration costs, spend some money on cost-effective quality improvement projects etc)
Maria
Little?
Me?
Far from it.
I am just large enough.
Fill myself completely
lengthwise and across
from top to bottom.
Are you larger than yourself maybe?
-Ingrid Hagerup-
Little?
Me?
Far from it.
I am just large enough.
Fill myself completely
lengthwise and across
from top to bottom.
Are you larger than yourself maybe?
-Ingrid Hagerup-
BROWN WINS! Let's celebrate the end of ObamaCare!!!
- 20/01/2010 02:20:22 AM
1384 Views
My vote put him over the top!!!! 
*NM*
- 20/01/2010 02:22:50 AM
401 Views
*NM*
- 20/01/2010 02:22:50 AM
401 Views
Wait...you only voted once? 
- 20/01/2010 02:24:42 AM
641 Views
- 20/01/2010 02:24:42 AM
641 Views
*dances with you*
- 20/01/2010 02:24:17 AM
643 Views
Don't jinx it
- 20/01/2010 02:27:25 AM
758 Views
It's a win-win situation as far as I'm concerned.
- 20/01/2010 02:33:16 AM
673 Views
i predict that political predictions are not always so cut and dried
- 21/01/2010 01:50:23 AM
690 Views
Actually, there is a chance they can use reconiliation to pass it. I hope not.
- 20/01/2010 02:46:47 AM
760 Views
If they did that, they'd be signing their own resignations.
- 20/01/2010 02:54:56 AM
679 Views
Probably so but Pelosi did bring it up a few weeks ago.
- 20/01/2010 04:05:17 AM
666 Views
If this isn't a wake up call to the democratic party...
- 20/01/2010 03:39:36 AM
688 Views
I guess it depends on the wake up call's message.
- 20/01/2010 03:45:38 AM
709 Views
The Democrats have the arrogance to say "people don't understand the Health Care Bill".
- 20/01/2010 03:57:17 AM
722 Views
I'm in no mood to celebrate
- 20/01/2010 04:34:42 AM
809 Views
Re: I'm in no mood to celebrate
- 20/01/2010 04:52:16 AM
691 Views
Do you honestly think this bill would help you?
- 20/01/2010 02:21:02 PM
694 Views
I believe I vented that the bill was crap, but that the alternative was crap as well 
- 20/01/2010 11:16:56 PM
820 Views
- 20/01/2010 11:16:56 PM
820 Views
I don't understand this
- 20/01/2010 09:07:09 AM
966 Views
That would be so massive a reform that it would never ever pass.
- 20/01/2010 12:47:23 PM
735 Views
There are a lot of reasons
- 20/01/2010 02:13:58 PM
688 Views
Groaning under illegal immigrants?
- 20/01/2010 03:38:23 PM
789 Views
Right...you just go back to what you know, though I'm not sure anyone has determined what that is.
- 20/01/2010 03:49:22 PM
685 Views
Re: There are a lot of reasons
- 20/01/2010 05:01:31 PM
717 Views
I think your misunderstanding comes from one concept you mention.
- 20/01/2010 04:57:27 PM
773 Views
I do hope this doesn't turn Obama into a lame duck. *NM*
- 20/01/2010 02:07:34 PM
383 Views
Frankly, I hope it does. *NM*
- 20/01/2010 02:15:11 PM
347 Views
And then what will happen after that?
- 20/01/2010 10:35:46 PM
823 Views
It would mean, effectively, that Congress controls the domestic agenda and Hillary foreign affairs.
- 20/01/2010 10:52:24 PM
523 Views
And condemn more people to untimely deaths?
- 20/01/2010 02:33:08 PM
671 Views
Pity, that there is no government sanctioned murder of the stupid.
- 20/01/2010 02:52:52 PM
604 Views
Democrats want the terrorists to win, and enjoy killing babies.
- 20/01/2010 02:59:35 PM
664 Views
Democrats don't just enjoy killing babies. They're not monsters.
- 20/01/2010 07:46:59 PM
670 Views
As a matter of fact, some babies are put back into the womb, just so they can be aborted again. *NM*
- 22/01/2010 05:10:35 AM
436 Views
Well, the more elderly that die, the better chance Social Security will be saved. *NM*
- 20/01/2010 07:44:57 PM
370 Views
*NM*
- 20/01/2010 07:44:57 PM
370 Views
I thought it was time for another such celebration...
- 20/01/2010 03:35:28 PM
723 Views
True, but it is now finally DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- 21/01/2010 01:08:12 AM
711 Views